Democracy — or the lack of it — came up again and again during a heated and sometimes confrontational five-hour Peterborough city council meeting on Monday (February 24), when three councillors voted to support Mayor Jeff Leal’s strong mayor motion to expedite Brock Mission’s proposed transitional housing project by amending the city’s zoning by-law and exempting the project from the city’s site plan requirements.
Brock Mission is proposing a 52-unit, six-storey co-ed transitional housing apartment building to be constructed at 738 Chemong Road, where the organization already operates Cameron House, a 12-bed emergency shelter for women with drug addictions and mental health issues, along with eight transitional housing units for women transitioning from homelessness. Brock Mission has already received $250,000 in funding from the city to develop the proposal.
Three councillors — Gary Baldwin, Kevin Duguay, and Lesley Parnell — joined Mayor Leal to vote in favour of the motion and the two accompanying by-laws, despite community opposition to the proposed development, including its location and both the process and speed at which the proposed development is proceeding.
Because Mayor Leal had invoked his strong mayor powers for the motion, the support of only one third of council (four councillors) was needed for the motion to pass — such an exceptional case that votes had to be recorded outside of the city’s normal vote-tracking technology.
Council met as general committee at 4:30 p.m. on Monday afternoon, with the mayor attending remotely as he is recovering at home from surgery. Since the general committee meeting served as a public meeting under the Planning Act, it was chaired by councillor Lesley Parnell, who is the presiding officer for public matters related to the Planning Act.
The meeting was scheduled to take 90 minutes, with a regular city council meeting to follow at 6 p.m. However, it soon became apparent that the meeting was going to take much longer.
As soon as the public meeting began, councillor Joy Lachica raised a point of order to declare the meeting and the mayor’s motion as being out of order.
“We have just, minutes ago, received an amendment via the clerk to by-law 052,” Lachica said, referring to the proposed zoning by-law amendment for 738 Chemong Road. “So it is not the same by-law that was presented at the public meeting on Thursday night, nor is it the same by-law that councillors have reviewed in preparation for this meeting tonight.”
Last Thursday night (February 20), Brock Mission held an open house community meeting at St. Peter Catholic Secondary School to present the proposed development to local residents, with representatives from engineering and land planning firm D.M. Wills Associates and Aside Architects Inc. also attending.
At that meeting, residents expressed concern about the impact of a six-storey building on surrounding homes in the residential neighbourhood and the safety and security of the women using Cameron House.
“Thank you for your opinion, but we will be proceeding with the meeting because it’s actually under provincial legislation more than municipal legislation,” councillor Parnell told Lachica, who then made a point of order challenging the chair.
“Sorry, you can’t,” Parnell said. “This is under provincial legislation and we will be proceeding … this supersedes municipal (processes) so please stand down.”
As Lachica continued to speak, Parnell refused to recognize her and again asked her “to please stand down.”
On another point of order, Lachica then asked the clerk to declare the chair in breach of the city’s procedural by-law, as Parnell was not recognizing her point of order.
Parnell said the meeting would proceed under the strong mayor powers of the provincial government. In 2023, the province provided strong mayor powers to 45 municipalities, including Peterborough, in which heads of council can propose municipal by-laws under provincial legislation – including the Municipal Act and the Planning Act – if they believe the proposed by-laws could potentially advance the provincial priority of housing.
“This is new for all of us — this is the first time in Peterborough (that strong mayor powers have been used),” Parnell said. “This is under provincial legislation. If you have a concern about it, please contact your Premier. The meeting will proceed.”
As Lachica continued to object, Parnell twice told her to “be quiet.”
“She needs to have some manners or will be removed,” Parnell threatened. “I am the chair, and we are proceeding with the meeting.”
Lachica asked to challenge the chair as per the procedure by-law, and Parnell refused to allow it. She also refused to recognize a point of order subsequently raised by councillor Alex Bierk, but allowed him a point of information.
“So you’re saying that, because this is a strong mayor motion, that aspects of our procedural by-law are not in effect?” Bierk asked. “Can you just clarify how the meeting is going to be governed then?”
Parnell then deferred the question to legislative services commissioner David Potts, who confirmed that the provincial legislation for strong mayor powers supersedes the city’s procedural by-law.
Although Potts did not reference the specific regulation, the strong mayor powers provision under section 284.11.1 of the Municipal Act states that “despite any procedure by-law passed by the municipality,” a mayor can propose a by-law to council “and require the council to consider and vote on the proposed by-law at a meeting.”
“In any respect, the procedure by-law does not apply,” Potts said.
On a point of order, councillor Keith Riel then asked “What rules are we going to play by tonight, because I don’t have a set of rules in front of me that supersedes our procedural by-law for the city?”
Parnell refused to recognize Riel’s point of order and returned to the agenda for the meeting, at which time Lachica raised another point on order to defer the motion. She said there is no language in the provincial legislation that suspends the procedural by-law.
“A deferral is out of order for this,” Parnell said. “It’s under strong mayor powers. As has already been stated about five times now, the provincial legislation supersedes our municipal procedural by-law, so deferral is not in order.”
“I will accept no more interruptions,” added Parnell, who then asked Mayor Leal to make his remarks.
The mayor explained that he decided to use his strong mayor powers “at Brock Mission’s request” to expedite the Brock Mission development, saying it is consistent with the city’s “Housing First” strategy.
He explained his rationale for doing so by noting that Brock Mission owns the land on which the development would be built, that the organization has successfully operated Cameron House on the property for years “without incident,” that Brock Mission does not permit drug use and encourages treatment, that the proposed site is on a high-capacity arterial road with access to public transit and within walking distance of shopping and services.
Mayor Leal added that the proposed Brock Mission development is “very similar” to the Peterborough Housing Corporation’s six-storey 53-unit affordable housing project at 681 Monaghan Road, which is expected to open in April.
The mayor described the proposed building, pointing out that two of the units would be reserved for palliative care for people experiencing homelessness “who are at the end of life.”
“I’ve been clear that when there are opportunities to address our critical need for housing, particularly supportive housing, I will do whatever is within my authority as mayor to support these projects moving forward for the benefit of our community,” said Mayor Leal said.
He noted that councillors Riel and Bierk, supported by councillor Lachica, had asked him to use strong mayor powers to establish a temporary homelessness shelter, but he believes the province intended strong mayor powers to only be used for the building of permanent housing.
The mayor then invited Brock Mission board member Alan Wilson to address council and answer questions.
Although a public meeting under the Planning Act would normally be restricted to a rezoning discussion, councillor Parnell indicated that she would allow “some leeway” to Wilson to address operational questions and site plan issues in recognition of community concerns about the proposed development.
After councillor Bierk attempted to raise a point of order about meeting procedure, Parnell told him there was no debate on strong mayor powers and asked the clerk to mute his microphone.
“I’m not debating — I have a question about things that you are shutting down that are part of our procedure, part of the democracy that we have around this table, and you are in one stroke saying that ‘No, this doesn’t apply in this case’,” said Bierk, adding that he believes strong mayor powers do not give a mayor the power to change a procedural by-law.
Parnell said the meeting would proceed with Wilson’s delegation.
“Men, women, teenagers, children (are) freezing out there tonight, and it seems the only thing that matters is points of order,” Wilson said. “Can we please focus on what we need in the City of Peterborough? And that’s transitional housing.”
“I’ve worked (on this project) this for the last 14 months — it’s accelerated in recent months — and I personally asked Mayor Leal if he would consider using his strong mayor powers.”
After describing the existing “rules-based” Cameron House on the proposed site, Wilson noted that there would be no drug use or illegal behaviour allowed at the new transitional housing facility. He said that while Cameron House will remain on the site, “its use might change.”
Councillor Andrew Beamer — who, as Northcrest Ward councillor, represents the neighbourhood around the proposed site — asked Wilson to assure council that the proposed development would be different from Trinity Community Centre and the Wolfe Street bridge housing project, where community safety concerns have been raised, and what the plan would be to deal with any issues that arise.
“We’re not another Trinity. At Trinity, you can use drugs, sell drugs, buy drugs. At Wolfe Street, you can do the same,” said Wilson, adding that he contacted Peterborough police chief Stuart Betts to confirm there have been no calls for services related to drug use or disorderly behaviour at Cameron House or in the surrounding area, although there were 30 calls related to mental health issues.
After councillor Riel questioned Wilson about the safety of the women using the Cameron House shelter if a new 52-unit building is built beside it, Wilson said Brock Mission is discussing moving the shelter portion of Cameron House to another site and using Cameron House only for transitional housing.
In response to a question from councillor Lachica, Wilson said Brock Mission’s original proposal for a 10-storey building at Murray Street did not proceed because of the lack of 11 parking spots for staff, and said the decision to change the proposed site from Murray Street to Chemong Road was made only by himself and Brock Mission executive director Bill McNabb. Wilson later said that five sites were considered, but three were taken off the list because the owners already had plans for private development.
After Lachica asked about capital funding for the $16-million building, Wilson said Brock Mission would be applying to the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) for the funding after the two by-laws before council are approved. He added that, even if the decision to approve the by-laws was delayed even by a week, it would affect the timelines to get the building operational “by this time next year.”
After saying he was supportive of the project but not of the process, councillor Bierk asked Wilson about the operational budget for the project and where Brock Mission would get the operational funding.
“The operational plan for the budget has been costed at $2 million, and the MPP (Dave Smith) has said he will make sure we get that money,” said Wilson, adding in response to another question from Bierk that Brock Mission would not approach the city for funding if provincial funding was not supplied.
After Bierk asked Wilson whether Brock Mission would be integrating into the project the feedback it has received from the community, Wilson said he would give a “personal commitment” that he has been making notes on the feedback and “everything that we need to take action on, will be taken action on,” with regular updates to the community.
In response to a question from councillor Gary Baldwin about community safety, Wilson said the proposed development would have fencing around it, with the only access via the existing Chemong Road entrance, and lighting and security cameras would be installed on the building.
Councillor Bierk asked Wilson whether Brock Mission would provide on-site addictions treatment services. Wilson said that Brock Mission engages with professional services agencies to run in-house programs or at the agencies’ premises.
Following Wilson’s presentation, council heard from 15 delegations, with councillor Parnell prefacing the delegations by noting “the strong mayor power ruling is not up for debate” and that comments should be limited to the rezoning item.
For the first delegation, Sarah McNeilly raised concerns about the use of strong mayor powers.
“I care about the homeless, but I have to ask a fundamental question: do we still care about democracy? Because that’s what at stake here, not transitional housing. This is about whether we, as a city, as a council, as a people, still believe in the bedrocks of democracy.”
Councillor Parnell then interrupted McNeilly, indicating that she was speaking to strong mayor powers.
“Madam chair, please, this is my right as a citizen in a democracy,” McNeilly said with her voice raised, before agreeing to limit her comments.
McNeilly noted the requirements of the Planning Act require an open house to be held seven days prior to a public meeting, and a public notice must be sent to neighbours 20 days before the public meeting. In response to a question from councillor Lachica, McNeilly shared her expertise with fundraising and noted that Brock Mission does not appear to be following best practices.
After a question from councillor Bierk about the community meeting held on February 20, McNeilly said there was an error in the shadow study and that it did not show the complete shadow of the building. McNeilly also said that, had stakeholders been consulted at the beginning of the project 14 months ago, “not only would there have been buy-in, I imagine there could even have been excitement.”
During the remaining delegations, other speakers expressed similar concerns about the lack of consultation about the project, the speed with which the project is moving forward, as well as the suitability of the location, the shadows cast by the building, negative impact on property values, and privacy, safety, and security concerns.
Larry Stinson, who lives on Aberdeen Avenue directly adjacent to the proposed development, noted the impact of the building on his property but said he was at council to speak to the process.
“I think that the process that has been undertaken to arrive at this proposal has lacked an appropriate and reasonable consultation process, and I think the proposal itself is flawed and does not serve the best interests of the overall community in the long term,” he said, adding that he recognized the pressure the city has towards meeting housing targets. “But the balance between urgency and good decision-making has been skewed too much toward urgency in this case.”
He noted that, while the property has a Chemong Road address, it is located in a neighbourhood of single family homes. He pointed out that, while Cameron House has been integrated into the neighbourhood, this would not be the case for a dominating six-storey building. He said the decision to choose the site seems only to be based on the fact that Brock Mission owns the property.
Michelle Adams, speaking on behalf of her 88-year-old mother Jill who lives within two blocks of the proposed development, objected to the lack of consultation and said excluding the development from the site planning process “is both unsafe and undemocratic.”
“It does not make any sense to put 50 people, each with potentially multiple challenges, in the same building close to a women’s shelter in a residential neighbourhood,” Adams said, noting the increase in crime that accompanies the creation of a shelter and saying her responsibility was her mother and her safety.
Adams read a statement from her mother, wife of the late Peterborough-Kawartha MP and MPP Peter Adams, who objected to Mayor Leal’s use of strong mayor powers to move the project forward.
Referencing her late father, Adams said, “I believe he would be appalled at the lack of transparency, communication, and consultation associated with this project, and also the undemocratic use of the strong mayoral powers by Jeff Leal.”
Tanna Edwards, who lives on Bethune Street directly behind Cameron House, expressed her concerns about the impact of the new building on the women and staff at Cameron House, as well as the lack of consultation, noting that the community open house happened only four days ago for a project that began 14 months ago.
The final delegation was Diana Keay of D.M. Wills Associates, the firm contracted by Brock Mission for land planning, who spoke to some of the concerns raised during the meeting. She noted that the last-minute change to the proposed zoning by-law amendment was to include an inadvertently omitted item, which was the minimum size of a dwelling unit (28 square metres) in the existing plan.
After councillor Bierk asked Keay about the size of the units and whether they have kitchens, Aside Architects principal Neil Campbell addressed council.
He said the minimum size of the units is 28.6 square metres. He also described the common areas in the proposed building, including a rear courtyard and a front terraced area outside the building.
Inside the building, there are two common floors (ground floor and basement) that include two program rooms and a large west-to-east central stair between the floors, with a large dual-purpose common area for “some dining” served by a hospitality kitchen. A reception desk will be located behind a fully glazed entrance way, where staff can see anyone coming and going outside in the front or back and inside up or down the central stair. Campbell also said that each unit comes with kitchen facilities.
In terms of privacy for neighbours, Campbell said there were deliberate design decisions to not include any balconies for the units, and that the stairs are located in the north and south side of the building, so there are no unit windows that overlook neighbours.
Councillor Lachica, who is co-chair of the city’s infrastructure, planning and growth management portfolio, said she found it “mind boggling” that she saw documents such as the project’s shadow study for the first time at the February 20 community meeting. She asked Keay why the documents were not provided to city staff, councillors, and the public.
“This is not a typical process,” Keay replied. “We have not submitted an application. We have not gone through the zoning by-law process as prescribed under the Planning Act. We were not required to host an open house either; however the Brock Mission deemed in necessary to do so.”
“It was through that open house that we made sure that we had as much available information as possible to share with the community, so city staff was provided with information about the project — not through an application because there is no application.” She later added that city staff were provided all the information that was presented at the open house.
“Any information to council through the city is the responsibility of the city, so I can’t speak to why you didn’t get it in your agenda package, but I can speak to the fact that we did not provide information to the city in a typical matter, because there’s no application. We provided it through our open house.”
Lachica asked Keay if this was a “best practice, best approach” for a project like this. Keay replied that the mayor was asked to use his strong powers, he accepted, and it is not for her to say whether that request was appropriate.
After Lachica attempted a follow-up question asking Keay to provide her professional opinion, councillor Parnell interrupted to indicate that the mayor’s decision to use strong mayor powers was not up for debate.
Later, councillor Kevin Duguay asked Keay whether, in her professional capacity as a planner, she believed the proposed development “represents good planning.”
“I do believe it represents good planning,” she said. “There’s a critical need in the community for this type of development. It is being put in a location that it can be supported. It meets the official plan policies. It meets the provincial policies.”
Councillor Lachica asked Wilson whether Brock Mission had any discussions about using 13.3 acres of city-owned property at Calvary Church on Lansdowne Street West.
“It has never been discussed with me,” he said.
After a brief recess at the end of the public delegations, council reconvened to debate Mayor Leal’s motion.
Councillor Dave Haacke asked Brad Appleby, the city’s director of infrastructure, planning and growth management, if the city had followed the proper notice provisions of the Planning Act.
Appleby confirmed the city met its obligations under the legislation by providing notice 20 days in advance of the public meeting, with a notice published in the Peterborough Examiner on February 4 and a mailing to property owners within 120 metres of the proposed development on February 4.
Councillor Joy Lachica asked Mayor Leal if, after having heard the discussion and comments at the meeting, he would be willing to defer his strong mayor motion until the end of the next council meeting cycle, which the clerk said would be March 10.
After initially replying that he would consider it, he asked Wilson to provide further clarification. Wilson said that if a property had been offered six months ago, “I would have jumped at it.” He also said that, while the building could be built at another location, the $250,000 in city funding provided to Brock Mission has already been spent on the architects, engineers, and planners for the current proposed location.
“So I would need another $250,000 to transfer to another site,” he said. “I’m not asking the mayor to change his generous response to me a number of weeks ago.”
After Wilson’s remarks, Mayor Leal told council “We’re going to continue on the track we’re on this evening.”
Councillor Riel, who is co-chair of the city’s community services (homelessness) portfolio, said he objected to the process and was personally against the mayor using strong mayor powers. He added that capital funding would not be not available to Brock Mission as part of the $6.2 million Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) Hub.
“I’m not going to vote for this,” Riel said.
“Fine,” councillor Parnell replied. “Well, as (you are) co-chair of homelessness, I can see that.”
Responding to Parnell’s comment, councillor Lachica called for a point of order.
“That is disparaging, and the chair should be removed,” Lachica said.
“I demand an apology right now from you,” Riel added
“No sir, you’re not getting one,” Parnell replied.
“I’ve been courteous to you, I will not accept that,” Riel said.
“No, I’m sorry sir, you’ve been nothing but rude,” Parnell replied, before ceding the floor to councillor Bierk.
“Can I just get three seconds to just contain my composure?” Bierk said to Parnell.
“I really don’t feel this meeting is being run in a way that follows our procedural by-law. You didn’t have the floor to make that little tidbit comment to the speaker. So now I’m having to gain my composure, worried if you’re going to cut in while I’m speaking and interrupt me and be out of order.”
Parnell interrupted Bierk and said that Riel’s comments were “going way beyond rezoning.”
“It sets us up for a really tough position when we have comments like that, and we’re being told that we can’t challenge the chair and we can’t call a point of order, so this is a very confusing meeting,” Bierk said, adding that he is supportive of the Brock Mission project but not the process.
Bierk said that it puts councillors in an “unfair position” to be told that, if they don’t support the mayor’s motion, the project cannot proceed.
After councillor Duguay noted he was a practising professional planner, he said he “was not convinced there would be a differing result” if the project were deferred to allow for additional public consultation, and that he would support the mayor’s motion.
Councillor Lachica asked Duguay, who is her co-chair of the city’s infrastructure, planning and growth management portfolio, whether he had been meeting with city planning staff to facilitate the project.
After Duguay replied he had not met with planning staff outside of the normal portfolio meetings, Lachica said she had been told he had done so, at which point Parnell said “You are crossing the line.”
Duguay reiterated he has not been having separate meetings with planning staff on the projects, adding “I do take some exception to the inference” before confirming again “There have been no clandestine meetings, or separate meetings, with staff.”
Following some further discussion, councillors voted on the mayor’s motion. Mayor Leal and councillors Baldwin, Duguay, and Parnell voted in favour, and councillors Lachica, Riel, Bierk, Crowley, Haacke, Vassiliadis, and Beamer voted against. With only four votes required for a strong mayor motion to pass, the motion was carried.
After the general committee meeting adjourned, councillor returned to chambers to meet as city council. During the 20-minute meeting, Mayor Leal’s motion and by-laws weres confirmed by city council by the same vote as in general committee.
